Share this story!            

Editorial: Danger on the Durand Line

The news is that there is a build-up of NATO-ISAF forces on Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan in the province of Khost. If the reports are correct, the tribal agency of North Waziristan is directly threatened. Apart from hundreds of troops, mostly American, reports say that “helicopters have been transporting tanks and armoured personnel carriers (APCs)” from the landing strips in the Khost province of Afghanistan. Are we on the verge of facing an invasion of Pakistani territory?

The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General, Major General Athar Abbas, says it is probably a “routine movement” and that it is the Pakistani media creating its usual negative “hype”. There is an attempt to play down the development from the other side too, with the American commanders claiming they have moved forward only in search of the Taliban invaders who attacked and killed US soldiers in the Kunar province earlier. But anyone who thinks in military terms will hardly credit this version, even if what the other side says is true. The amassing of troops on the border is an acknowledged military “signal” that simply can’t be ignored. Meanwhile, Pakistan seems to be united in its reaction to protest any encroachment of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. .

But if you probe the Pakistani opinion it is not really united in its detail. It is full of mutual recrimination and discord over why the troop development has taken place and what should be done about it. Maulvi Umar of the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has “welcomed” the build-up of troops with his familiar bravado: “It’s a gift that they’re coming here on our land and making it easy for us to kill our enemies, the enemies of Muslims.” Of course, he has no idea, despite the fate his namesake in Afghanistan brought to his people in 2001, what the common man will have to go through to pay for his derring-do.

Maulvi Umar has also hurled a threat at Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani for saying that there were “foreign terrorist elements” in the Tribal Areas: “We will consider Prime Minister Gilani our enemy if the NATO or Pakistani security forces attack us after his baseless claim”. Some ex-diplomats and ex-generals, who have turned hostile because of their opposition to Pakistan’s role as an ally of the global war on terrorism, are also critical of what they think is “dysfunctional” leadership in Islamabad. One such says that Pakistan should confront America and rely on the Taliban as its frontline troops against the NATO-ISAF forces.

Because of TTP’s avowal of attacking inside Afghanistan to fight “Jews and Christians”, the NATO-ISAF commanders may be rethinking their strategy of waiting in a state of entrenchment as the Taliban have the freedom to attack. The policy of letting the enemy enjoy the initiative of deciding the nature of the battle could be undergoing a change after the siege of Kunar. The new strategy could be that of “going to the enemy” instead, at the risk of coming under attack from the front as well as from the rear from the local and Pakistan-based Taliban. In this, however, a “third” risk too is palpable.

The big risk is tangling with the hundred thousand Pakistani troops on the border charged with preventing the TTP and “guest” soldiers from infiltrating into Afghanistan. Apart from using drones to spy and attack, the NATO-ISAF forces have had incidents with our troops that have soured relations between Islamabad and Washington. The Pakistan army doesn’t feel too friendly towards the Americans across the Durand Line, but such is the state of contradictory passions in Pakistan that it could face the same kind of challenge as the NATO-ISAF forces: being attacked from the front (by Americans) and the rear (by the Taliban) at the same time.

Both sides are aware that they face difficulties. Their ideal choice would have been a joint operation catching the terrorists in a pincers movement, but the landscape of public opinion in Pakistan simply doesn’t allow that. This was known from the very beginning and that is why the US decided to make Pakistan an ally that would do the job on its side without American interference. Even today there is a move in the US Congress for trebling the US aid to Pakistan. But the universal sentiment of anti-Americanism in Pakistan prevents the government from taking the most pragmatic course in the interest of the state.

Passionate opinion-makers want the government to bring the issue to parliament as if it was ordained by the Constitution. But there is a real possibility that any parliamentary debate or initiative could be counter productive, given the outrage in the air, and would entrap the government in a non-pragmatic, even rash response. Therefore Islamabad must proceed dispassionately and pragmatically in the matter of the perceived threat on its border. *

Second Editorial: Shahbaz Sharif’s move on Balochistan

The chief minister of Punjab, Mr Shehbaz Sharif, visited Quetta recently. His initiative has been commended by all commentators. Most have been drawn into contrasting the “activism” of Mr Sharif to the relative “inaction” of the PPP government. But they may have missed the real point while doing so. The PPP has its own chief minister in Quetta and has taken a very important step by freeing the Baloch leaders who were languishing in jail during the tenure of the past government. Actually, what Mr Sharif has done is far more important than he is being given credit for.

Mr Shahbaz Sharif has gone to Quetta as a representative of the majority province of Punjab. The grievances of Balochistan apparently relate to the federation but if you look closely they are all linked to the “conduct of Punjab”. There is no denying that the final package of autonomy will come from Islamabad but, there is one issue, that of deciding the criterion for the division of budgetary funds at the centre, which Lahore will have to decide. Before he landed in Quetta, Mr Sharif must have taken note of a spate of opinion there about Punjab not budging on the “population principle” that blocks adequate funds to Balochistan and impoverishes it. Therefore Mr Sharif should yield to adding a special extra provision for backwardness at the next meeting of the National Finance Commission (NFC). *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!